What is Supernatural?

Hey MatterWave. Your whole argument seems a bit ethereal, akin to attempting to disprove the existence of the FSM or IPUs. How can you disprove an undisprovable concept? It is a line of reasoning which is weak, to the point of being ridiculous; instead, you need to logically provide evidence that this "realm" (read: reality) is not supernatural.Because no one can disprove your idea of the supernatural, what does that mean? To me, it means it's a non debatable subject. For example, I can say because of the order in which fossils occur in the geologic record, that the great flud did not occur. You can say, "Well, you can't tell me that a magical being didn't make it that way for some special purpose, so I declare the flud a fact!" and to that I'll have to concede that it's not a point I can argue. Does that make you correct? Nope, it just means it's what you believe, and that it's not addressable in this context (or in any scientific context, for that matter). Beliefs and reality often do not mesh. ("...but what is reality?" says MatterWave)Seems you'd be better served to argue the un-arguable in a philosophy forum. Sounds like you'd be good at debating moot points with yourself. You can start with solipsism--that's a good unanswerable one that'll have you chasing your own tail for weeks, if I'm on my mark about you. Have a good one.

If you are beating around the bush about the fact that we can never know anything for sure, then I guess I'd have to agree with you, Plato. Did you look up solipsism? Also another of the seemingly infinite mind exercises which will never be resolved (as if the originators of said exercises intended otherwise).I repeat: what is your point? That it's possible that everything's supernatural? OK, I get it. You're right, anything's possible. How does that make any difference in this thread? In order to examine a topic, we need to have a starting point. Where's your starting point, MatterWave? Oh, that's right, you don't have one, because you don't make assumptions about your own existence. Again, this is just another non-falsifiable position in a long list of possibilities. If you're saying I'm preferentially placing what I perceive as reality higher up on the list than "everything's supernatural", well then you've got me there. And since it has been argued countless times in the past by philosophers much more astute than you or I that existence (natural or supernatural) is unprovable, I contend that debate is pointless: a thought exercise and nothing more. Pardon me, but remove the "not" from before "supernatural" in my portion of the quote and you'll see what I was really trying to say. Sorry, my typo. Not those exact words, no. I was drawing a parallel, see? What you're saying is essentially the same--a non falsifiable position and pointless to argue.How about this? I'm Neo, you're Morpheus, and we're all actually part of a computer generated simulation in order to keep the human race docile while using our bodies for energy. Sound familiar? Yes, you are correct, MatterWave. The Matrix is just as feasible as "everything's supernatural". Once again, what's your point? That making a preferential decision to accept that I'm not living inside the Matrix is nothing more than an assumption on my part?Point taken, then.Have a good one.Edited by Apothecus, : spellign

That's just the thing, Stile. He's arguing that since the supernatural (or any other wacky idea) can't be disproven, that this is license to dump the natural into the "questionable" mix as well. Nature (read: reality) can't be proven, either, he's saying. Really, what is "the question of existence" if not a topic for a random conversation while under the influence of illicit substances? But that's all this can be. A conversation. Not a debate. You can't debate the undebatable. You can't make it something it was never intended to be. It's silly. You can give examples of "real" objects 'til the cows come home, but this is beside the point, to him. All he wants is some concession that his idea is possible. Please, feed the animals and let's be done with this line of thought. My sentiments exactly. However, MatterWave's premise is quite flimsy, so I suspect this may be something he'll agree with as well. Have a good one.

Hey Huntard, No, I don't think he does. But good point, nonetheless...Have a good one.

Thanks for the replies, MatterWave. I assume since you're replying to my post, you're contending that this is what I believe. At no time in this thread did I make this "leap", but thanks for putting words into my mouth.All I'm saying is that it's a silly argument. Did you understand Huntard's post, really? You can harp and harp and harp about the 6 million different notions (whatever you can imagine up) of whether some other type of reality is more "real" than what we define as "natural". For example (please try to understand this), you can't tell me we don't exist within Purple Fairy Land. Prove that we don't. Oh, and the absence of Purple Fairies cannot be used as an argument against the contention that we do indeed exist within Purple Fairy Land. And round and round we go...Your original argument was, "How do we know everything's not supernatural?" Yes, how do we know? How do we know anything, for sure? You can argue this pointless exercise until you go nuts. I think it all may come down to this statement: you seem to be looking for someone to admit (please, correct me if I'm mistaken here) that, indeed, accepting that everything we see resides in a natural realm is a "leap of faith" akin to unbelievers using the same term when describing the religious, no?If that's your intent, I think you ought to cut bait now, because you won't find many suckers here.Have a good one.

Well, Matterwave, like the Jimmy Superfly Snooker that you are, you grabbed me by the hair and dragged me back into this... Is this, or is this not what you have been relentlessly lambasting everyone else in "existence" for doing? Exactly, my existentially challenged friend. You have effectively wrapped yourself up into such a furball of your own manufacture that you don't know if you're coming or going. How else would you suggest beings (...what is the state of "being"?) interact with their world (...what is..."world") in a meaningful (...what is the meaning of... "meaningful"?) fashion? Would you have mankind live life (...what is...life?)in a philosophical haze of "Am I real, or is everything just...ethereal?" What exists? What is existence?So you posit, over and over and over, that we need to accept that we can't just assume that what we observe in nature is "existing" in any meaningful way. Stop making assumptions, you say. Why the "leap of faith", you say. Yet, you then state: Finally. We finally see that all your arguments boil down to nothing more than a thought experiment. Just musings charading as a contradictorily valid premise. You might call it, "stirring the pot". Another word for it is "trolling".MatterWave, had you left this big question (and I agree with you, it's a deep one) as just that, this may have been nothing more than a polite conversation. But I think you tried to make it some kind of crusade in which, instead of admitting you were just "thinking out loud," you took it to absolutely ridiculous lengths. Sorta like a snowball, rolling down a hill. Except in this case, the metaphorical hill and snowball don't actually exist.Have a good one.

Hey MW. Good job managing the onslaught. I'd not have the luxury of time to maintain it as you have.So, to be clear: you, in multiple posts in this thread, repeatedly, relentlessly, endlessly say this or something very similar to this: or this: Which begs the questions, "Does MatterWave argue this fervently because he wishes to take the long road 'round in making a freakin' point? Or does he argue this way because he actually believes we all just may be living in a supernatural realm?" I was beginning to reach the conclusion that the answer is closer to the latter until I read this: WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"If so, you, sir, are a walking contradiction.Have a good one.

Hey C.S. This is essentially what I've been trying to tell MW. This was a good, interesting topic before Mr. Threadjacker sunk his claws into it. When his basic arguments were effectively skewered, God unnecessarily entered the equation, thereby muddying the waters substantially. Since then it's become one useless, non-pertinent post after another from him, speaking purely from the standpoint that it just doesn't matter. Freshman level philosophical B.S., indeed.I really think if someone (it may have taken more than two or three replies in this vein) would have said: he would have felt his drift was gotten, and left it at that. I should have just said, "Trippy!" or "Far out!" or something like that. Instead, idiots like me found themselves sucked in, just to make the point that the discussion was pointless. What I still don't get, however, is why the zeal? Why all the concern that we're all just making assumptions when considering existence, but that it's OK "as long as you realize you're making them"? Surely MW can discern the difference between knowledge and belief (or acceptance). When one accepts that the most likely conclusion (assumption) is that everything we see is not supernatural, is that really making a "leap of faith", or is it just that since we really can't know this for certain, beliefs are all we have to go on? I can accept that our universe is "queerer that we can imagine" (hence my signature) but I also accept (or believe, if you wish) that we exist in a natural realm. Call it an assumption if you want, but can we really not assume we exist in something other than the supernatural? Yes, I get it that some say we just can't know, but what's the use of not assuming? The alternative IMO is to end up like MatterWave, hopping around with his undies in a knot, although I'd be surprised if, deep down, he didn't actually make the same assumptions he argues so vehemently against. Anyway, it's useless, pointless trying to argue the position; it's a thought experiment and that's about it. Let's discuss "Last Thursdayism" instead. Same type of argument, except that one's way more fun. Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey MatterWave. But don't you see? If you truly refuse to make some types of assumptions when discussing "What is Supernatural?" and the larger topic of existence, the discussion cannot even take place. This is evidenced by your inability to make a valid point, besides where you say "everyone makes assumptions". But is that really it? Is that all your argument consists of? We would just like to have a discussion that isn't somehow invalidated by your inability to understand this. "No one can know anything, so let's just not talk about it, ok?" Do you have anything more than this (a larger point?) that would constructively add to the discussion?I think most people here would (and have) admit to the fact that science cannot disprove anything supernatural, and also to the fact that they may, in fact, be wrong about what they believe. Hence the difference, again, between beliefs and knowledge. Anyone, athiest or religious, who would make the claim that they have enough knowledge of anything to conclude that it's an absolute proof would be electronically crucified. Show me an explicit example of someone on this thread claiming this--you may find some have strong beliefs either way, but what you don't seem to understand is that most of us get it. It's sort of a tacitly understood thing. We leave the philosophical crap in the back seat so we can have meaningful discussions. Not doing this, well, you're a good example of "not doing this". We can't prove or disprove a philosophical concept, nor should it be used as an argument to disprove another philosophical concept.False! How can you possibly come to this conclusion? Asking a question means nothing, except...asking a question. There is, in the English language, something called a "loaded question", but you'd need to take a gargantuan leap to conclude that's the case here. Now, this may be how your personal religious bias sees it, but as a rational human (you seem rational), do you really believe the question "What is Supernatural?" means anything other than what the words say? Some may choose to assign other meaning to it when discussing what "supernatural" actually is, but I don't think your opinion of the nature of the question itself would be held by many. It's just a damn question, for pete's sake. You're being obtuse and using inane arguments to cover it up. Emphasis mine.Where do you come up with this stuff? There is nothing in the concept of atheism which assumes this, but shows more personal religious bias on your part. According to you, no atheist would admit that they could be wrong about what they believe? (There's that slippery word 'believe' again) Is that what you're saying? Or is it that you're letting your broad-brushed bias construct some imaginary idea of what an atheist "should" be or believe? If so, you're shallower than I originally gave you credit for. Redeem yourself, please.Look, MW, all I'm saying is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill in this thread. Yes, we can't know or understand existence. But where does that get us? Here's an experiment that sums up this point quite well: go to any science thread in any forum on this website. Then cut and paste all of your arguments from this thread into those threads and I guarantee, they'll carry as much or as little significance as they do in this one.Can we be done now? Or would you like me to take another running whack at this dead, bloated horse?Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964